Happy New Year
|<font=3> Happy New Year 2009, and may all your articles get promoted!
Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you're active again. I've looked briefly at the Polaris article and will try and do a closer reading later. It's a most interesting expedition; a useful account is contained in Ninety Degrees North by Fergus Fleming (Granta Books, 2001), and a very comprehensive one in The Arctic Grail by Pierre Berton (Viking 1988). I don't know the availability of these books in Canada, though I have an American edition of the Berton. A couple of general thoughts: a map would be very useful to indicate key geographical locations (Smith Sound, Etah etc); also, the lengthy personnel table is a bit disruptive to the text, and you might consider relocating it, shortening it or even doing away with it (I'm not sure it is necessary to have a complete list of the names of minor crew members). Worth a thought or two. Brianboulton (talk) 11:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- A cautionary note about your -- very welcome! -- efforts on the Polaris Expedition entry. The Parry book, dramatic though it be, is in places very shoddily researched, and makes some claims that other researchers find doubtful. It can certainly be cited as a source, but that it is cited 2/3 of the time may be an issue. With points of controversy -- such as the issue of Budington's drunkenness or the degree of mutual trust between him and Hall -- the more strident claims of Parry should be corroborated or checked against other sources. Chauncey's Loomis's book, Weird and Tragic Shores, is very well researched,and is the first place I'd suggest one look; Berton is also very reliable, and Farley Mowat is also worth consulting. I have all these texts at hand and would be willing to assist as needed. Clevelander96 (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - I am realizing while reading it, that Parry's book is not really a serious historical record, it's written a little sensationally, and I plan on citing other books. My plan is to work through the Parry book, then replace as many citations as I can with other sources, like Berton and Fleming. Thanks for the tip on the Loomis book. Which Mowat book are you referring to? As you see, I consulted The Polar Passion and have cited it. Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, thanks for your offer to help, it would be appreciated. How about letting me finish this re-write (I'll get through the Parry book) then if you could replace some of the citations (or back up more controversial ones) with the books in your library, or any other re-writes you like, that would be great. Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Glad to hear back from you. I'd be glad to go over the article and corroborate/balance where it seems needed. The Mowat book I'd meant is Ordeal by Ice, his account of the NW Passage searchers. My impression of Parry is that he wants to vilify Buddington and argue against those who vilify Bessels. Loomis, in contrast, even though his investigation found arsenic in sample of Hall's tissues, is hesitant to say that the case against Bessels is more than circumstantial. This, and the reasoning/timing of the abandonment of the other part of the crew by the Polaris, are the two matters on which balance is most important, as they are just the points that historians disagree most about. I'll start looking through the entry soon. It's good to see it getting better! Clevelander96 (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Some points on your image commons:File:Accipiter_on_fence.jpg .
- If this date of 15 March 2008 is correct, can this really be a juvenile?
- Do yellow eyes occur in juvenile Coopers? Adult Coopers' eyes are orange/red. Sharp shin hawks' eyes remain yellow.
- Oops. this indicates a multi-year moult later in the year. My bad.LeadSongDog come howl 19:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Does that clear it up then? I'm not sure to be honest, I just took the photo, and tried to identify the bird with a guidebook - unsuccessfully at first, I was corrected that it is an accipiter not a hawk. Zatoichi26 (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm working on Markham, he's at peer review at the moment. If you have time, perhaps you'd look at it and comment (it's not all polar stuff, by the way). I'm glad to see that Polaris expedition made GA, but where's the GAN review? Regards, Brianboulton (talk) 12:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
...on your new family addition, which caps FA every time! I hope all is well, and look forward to your Wikipedia return later in the year. I'm not doing polar stuff at the moment, but I expect I'll be back to it come the autumn. My eyes are on Nansen. Brianboulton (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Batchawana Bay Prov Park.JPG or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)